The purpose of this blog is to communicate aspects of life such as philosophy, spiritual, education, psychology, mathematics and science. This blog does not mean political, business oriented, pornography, gender and racial issues. This blog is open and accessible for all peoples. Google Translator may useful to translate Indonesian into English or vise versa. (Marsigit, Yogyakarta Indonesia)

Mar 17, 2013

Mathematics and Language 7

@Marty: I just to grasp what is the kinds of your model. All mathematics
concepts are kinds of models. So your model can be a concepts in which I
should pursue to understand. Under pressure by uncertainty of your
model, intuitively I found the solution i.e. about who and how the model
(like yours) is to be constructed. Again, I found here that there are
only two sides i.e subject and object of the model. You are my subject
of your model; and I am your object of your model. This is exactly the
same case of what happened in teaching learning of mathematics. So
whatever of your model, the problem is who and how it is constructed. If
you wish to develop your model to solve the problems of communicating
mathematics, especially for younger learner, I worry that you use your
own criteria as the indicators; while the object should follow your
scheme. If it is true, I then found that you may being effort to build
your own world as it tries to perform hegemony. I totally disagree with
any effort of older people (power/capital) teacher/institution to
dominate the younger (powerless) people. Pure mathematicians, powerful
adult peoples as well as powerful interdisciplinary modelers have their
potentiality to do hegemony. I may misunderstand with your points. If it
did so, you need then make your clarifications or additional
information. Further, my question is how the common people be able to
develop such model contextually. Your sincerity may lead to uncover
further enigmatic.

The overall model (of which there is no single “link”) includes motor
skills training to make more of our non-conscious brain operation
available before the 300ms or so it typically takes for the “conscious”
cortex operation to be consciously “known” to us. I have found that such
skills training, while usually uncomfortable “emotionally” to almost
everyone, seems required to grok the overall model (and to avoid the
kinds of “conditioning” at the heart of what I call “persuasion
pollution”.).

Lastly, for now, I hope to find enough curiosity in someone out there to
give me an example (whether about education, human behavior, human
condition, whatever) of something(s) they want explained – and we’ll see
how, if at all, my model would explain.

@Marty, thank you for the information in the links.
A more readable (and complete) version of your patent appears on http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,885,912.PN.&OS=PN/7,885,912&RS=PN/7,885,912
To see the images, a free plug-in must be installed; one may find this by going to "Help" at the bottom of that page.
I shall be reading over the patent more carefully later, but my initial
impressions are: if you are getting rebuffed about the ideas here, you
are simply going to the wrong sources. Obviously there are a lot of
technical details (in further patents) that still need to be filled in
before the patent could be tested, but in the meantime, there are
agencies that look for guidelines towards which to work. The European
Union has just given a large grant for the funding of the extension of
the Blue Brain project, and there are many spin-offs from this endeavor.
Secondly, once some of the steps have been further formalized, sections
of your patent can be submitted to the ASL journals I mentioned in my
last post, or similar ones, to spur the necessary further formalization
by other contributors in the field. Thirdly, several Japanese firms have
produced androids for the classroom, and are working on perfecting
their models.
As to your other article, reduction of such "pollution" is indeed an
ongoing research endeavor; perhaps you should link into some of these
projects. As an example: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=people-can-be-tricked-into-reversing-their-opinions-on-morality&print=true
Finally, if you wish to find open problems on which to test your model,
this is no problem: again, in the ASL journals, open questions are
regularly posted, and solutions are invited. You could start with
http://www.aslonline.org/index.htm
. This is a more serious set of publications that the ones which
produced such wonders as the Sokal affair, and there are different
journals for the different aspects (some more formal, some more
philosophical, etc.) They should be available at a decent university
library near you (and subscriptions are affordable, with access to back
issues online).

@ Marty, very great and astonishing works on a widely
interdisciplinary modeler of human cognitive behavior. Looking at Figure
3. In your model, I then try myself to behave as if I was a data and
flowed in the Flowchart; while on the other hand, as a very new and
stranger to your work, I strived to examine every single step of my
position, using my prior knowledge and experiences of communication.
First I felt rather inconvenience due to the model was something very
new with also the new criteria; so I strive to fit myself in order to
maintain flowing in the model. Next, I felt I lost something i.e. my
intuitions and my habitual logic as well as my framework of
consciousness and understanding. I found I felt inconvenience with your
input and output system, due to my prior experiences have no single
pattern of getting input to my communication as the data. My pattern is
not a pattern; so in my communication I have a huge un-pattern zed input
of data. I prefer to use intention rather than notice; and before
knowledge I found my concept. In this stage I also lost my habit of
abstracting and idealizing the ideas. I prefer to use perception than
recognition. In the next step i.e. the box of decision, again I lost my
intuition and I feel strange with the term of decision. I prefer to use
judgment than decision; because the first is deeper than the second,
while the second tend to be more mechanical. In your decision step I
still looking for my something contingent and logical and intuition as
well. So too many things for me to suit to your models because I also
found that one part and other parts to some extent not in the rule of
if-then pattern as you did. I found something holographic and not in a
certain pattern; however, it depends of the context, culture and a
greater dimensional of communication. In line with my experiences, I
also found that there are a lot of unpredictable notions or actions of
the younger learner in doing communication. In sum, I found your model
be more mechanical and formal rather than psychological, anthropological
and philosophical. I found in my life that our communication sometimes
enter to normative and even spiritual dimension of communication.
Further, I saw a little bit dangerous following your scheme i.e.
simplification of communication or life; it leads to elimination of some
aspects of human life. As you know I always confront to the case. I am
an adult who try to be aware of every single step of communication as it
is in your model; I then can not imagine if there are the younger
learner who just follow the adults without any considerations. So
apologize for my perceiving the model sometimes can be a trap of
communication. This is my very early trying to understand of your model;
however, I do very appreciate of your great works.

I pointed out in this sentence "the younger learner who just follow the adults without any considerations". We should be aware of this condition. We should think how to make them follow us with consideration.